Why does the watchmaker's proof still work?

I have heard you many times bring up the watchmaker argument as evidence for the existence of God. I am trying to understand the argument in the modern world.
Evolution can explain why the universe seems so organized without the need for God, as you mentioned in the "Head to Head" discussion. However, you claimed that the laws that created evolution (the laws of logic for that matter) can prove the existence of God (because they point to some order).
This argument seems a bit strange to me, why would the laws of logic indicate order? Isn't it possible that any set of rules would lead to existence as it is? The premise in the argument says that there is order and not chaos, and after all, it proves that someone made order. But when talking about the laws of logic, it's strange to make claims about what would happen if they didn't exist because this is a reality that we can't test (that is, we can say that if a person didn't have the ability to sweat, he wouldn't be able to regulate his body during exertion and would therefore become extinct, because we can test empirically what would happen if reality were different. Not so for the laws of logic, is it possible to test what reality would look like with other rules? Or without rules? Maybe the universe would be better? Maybe not)